Several recent studies have shown a link between health and stair usage. One recently completed study shows that people who live in stairs-only apartment buildings (that is, buildings without elevators) live an average of three years longer than do people who live in buildings with both elevators and stairs. A second study shows that elderly residents of buildings with elevators make, on average, twice as many visits to doctors each year as do residents of buildings without elevators. Furthermore, several doctor's offices are reporting that residents of stairs-only buildings scored higher than average on questionnaires administered to new patients, in which the patients were asked to rate several aspects of their own health (e.g., fitness, sleep quality, susceptibility to injury, etc.). The clearest explanation for these findings is that the moderate daily exercise required of residents who must use the stairs instead of elevators increases people's health and longevity.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The prompt concludes that the clearest explanation for the various findings is the fact that moderate daily excercise required of residents who must use the staircase instead of the elevators increases their health and longetivity. However, this explaanation, as it is currently, is flawed as various alternative explanations were not considered. Three of them are discussed in this essay.
First, the author of the prompt did not consider the alternative explanation of correlation not causation. In each of the studies cited by the author as a premise for the explanation, there is only a measure of correlation of health with stair usage. There is no evidence to show that stairs usage leads to better health. For example, studies in a village in Germany showed that there was correlation between the popultion growth of a type of bird with the population growth of human babies. However, it would be clearly absurd to think that the increase in that bird's population is actually causing humans to give birth more. Thus, the associated with health and stairs usage may just be mere correlation. If the explantion of correlation, not causation, is true, then the author's explanation is clearly inadequate.
Similarly, the author did not consider the alternative explanation of reverse causality. In the first study cited, it might just be that it is because the great state of health of the people living in a stairs only house that they did not consider setting up an elevator as they are strong enought to use the stairs. Also, in the second study cited, it may also be that the elserly people who live in houses with elevators choose to live in those houses because their health could not allow them to live in houses without them. Thus, it is very possible that people will sub optimal health choose houses with elevators because of their prior health conditions while people with great health do not have those concerns, making the author's explanation incorrect.
Furthermore, another possible explanation for the facts presented in the argument is strengths and validity of the studies. This may be a case of reinforcement/ confirmation bias. The author may have chosen studies that seems to support his/her prior theory on the links between health and stair usage. The studies sampled by the author may be representative of the entire studies in that field. The number of studies may also be small. It may also be that the author discarded or ignored other studies that have shown other parameters such as nutrition played a far more causal role in health than usage of staircase. If this is true, then the author's explanation does not hold water.
To thoroughly judge the author's position, the author will need to ensure that these alternative explanations do not hold. For example, evidence can be gathered in the form of a controlled study to rule out the explanation of mere correlation and reverse causality. In the same vein, the author must show that the sample size and scope of the samples he/she studied were representative of the entire field. However, the explanation given by the author right now is flawed.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 525 350
No. of Characters: 2557 1500
No. of Different Words: 223 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.787 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.87 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.662 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.131 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.76 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.503 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.131 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 286, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'stairs'' or 'stair's'?
Suggestion: stairs'; stair's
...sage. There is no evidence to show that stairs usage leads to better health. For examp...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 775, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ation, not causation, is true, then the authors explanation is clearly inadequate. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 202, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a stair' or simply 'stairs'?
Suggestion: a stair; stairs
...state of health of the people living in a stairs only house that they did not consider s...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 731, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... do not have those concerns, making the authors explanation incorrect. Furthermore...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 397, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ve of the entire studies in that field. The number of studies may also be small. It...
^^^
Line 13, column 646, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...of staircase. If this is true, then the authors explanation does not hold water. T...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, similarly, so, then, thus, while, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2627.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 523.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02294455067 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74392242217 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435946462715 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 814.5 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.8306114695 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.08 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.92 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.64 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.23154291351 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0643072300075 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0674162278734 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122451809573 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0701071379367 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.5 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.